GotGC??
02-20 04:48 PM
This is useful, but I doubt its accuracy because some of the cases I know - including mine - are missing !!
Here is the link to database:
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CasePerm.aspx
Here is the link to database:
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/CasePerm.aspx
wallpaper red carpet regular.
Refugee_New
03-19 03:05 PM
Well...my PD is current and my RD at Nebraska is also current as per thier processing times. But still no LUDs or any other updates so far :( (its been 19 days since my PD became current)
I already spoke to USCIS IO one week back, and was told its a bit too early, and wait for 45 days and call back if nothing happens until then. They weren't willing to give me the status whether my Namecheck crossed 180 days.
Just going to wait until April 1, and then call them again. Or get an INFOPASS . What do the gurus suggest?
[EB3 - I , PD May 2001, RD July 30 07, Nebraska ]
Its unfortunate that you have a very recent RD. I talked to an IO at NSC yesterday and i was told that they will process the case based on the order they recieved. So they go by RD. If this is true then i guess you will have to wait some more time. Because thousands of people applied I-485 between June first to July 30.
I already spoke to USCIS IO one week back, and was told its a bit too early, and wait for 45 days and call back if nothing happens until then. They weren't willing to give me the status whether my Namecheck crossed 180 days.
Just going to wait until April 1, and then call them again. Or get an INFOPASS . What do the gurus suggest?
[EB3 - I , PD May 2001, RD July 30 07, Nebraska ]
Its unfortunate that you have a very recent RD. I talked to an IO at NSC yesterday and i was told that they will process the case based on the order they recieved. So they go by RD. If this is true then i guess you will have to wait some more time. Because thousands of people applied I-485 between June first to July 30.
jgh_res
05-17 10:01 AM
Here is the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/17/dobbs.bushspeech/index.html
Posted article is below. Refer to the highlighted section :
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's address from the Oval Office on border security and illegal immigration failed to satisfy either advocates of amnesty or those demanding that the government secure our borders and ports. Whether by design or not, however, the president did manage to advance public awareness of both crises.
The president finally acknowledged the unsustainable social and economic burdens of permitting millions of illegal aliens to forge documents, pressure our public schools and hospitals, and overtax our local and state budgets.
And the president, in asking for more border patrol officers and sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to our southern border to support the Border Patrol, also acknowledged the federal government's utter failure to protect the American people by securing our borders, across which as many as three million illegal aliens enter this country each year.
President Bush's five-point plan began with the words, "First, the United States must secure its borders." But the president did not assign any urgency to the national task of doing so. Deploying as many as 6,000 members of the National Guard to help secure our broken border with Mexico is positive step.
But the president's proposal to place those National Guardsmen in some sort of adjunct support role is peculiar at best, and without question, woefully inadequate. The president sounded as if he were trying to appease Mexico's President Vicente Fox, assuring him we would not militarize the border. If there is to be appeasement at all, that should fall to the Mexican government rather than President Bush.
Not only are millions of illegal aliens entering the United States each year across that border, but so are illegal drugs. More cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana flood across the Mexican than from any other place, more than three decades into the war on drugs.
President Bush and all the open borders advocates should be held to account for not doing everything in their power to destroy the drug traffic across our borders, as well as illegal immigration.
If it is necessary to send 20,000 -- 30,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico to preserve our national sovereignty and protect the American people from rampant drug trafficking, illegal immigration and the threat of terrorists, than I cannot imagine why this president and this Congress would hesitate to do so.
And how can this president and this Congress begin to rationalize placing immigration reform, which has been neglected since the last amnesty 20 years ago, ahead of national security and the safety of all Americans?
President Bush went on to say that in order to secure our borders we must create a temporary guest worker program. What? Come again, Mr. President. The president knows better, and so do the American people. Control of our borders and ports is necessary to our national security and a temporary worker program is an exploitive luxury for corporate America.
The president also said we need to hold employers who hire illegal aliens accountable, but he failed to say how. What should be the penalties for these illegal employers? How large a fine should they receive? How many years in jail for the executives of such companies?
It would have been inspiring to hear the president say that he and his friend Vicente Fox had discussed illegal immigration and drug trafficking and reached an agreement that both our country's militaries would be used to create a joint border security force, one that working together would ensure the integrity of the Untied States/Mexico border.
Wouldn't it have been nice as well for this president to suggest that the U.S. government would also take seriously its responsibilities to create a new and efficient immigration system to accommodate the backlog of millions of people trying to do the right thing? The same agency that would have to oversee Mr. Bush's amnesty program could not begin to do so because the Citizenship and Immigration Services already faces a backlog of millions of people who are trying to enter this country lawfully.
Aside from the fact that both political parties are complicit with corporate America and special interests in placing so-called immigration reform ahead of border and port security speaks volumes about our elected officials' commitment to the national interest and the weight and influence of corporate America over both parties.
Mr. President, I don't think the American people will tolerate this much longer.
2011 red carpet. Flowy dresses
yabadaba
06-22 10:05 AM
To Hemasar
No- You better get you act straight.
Your post heading said "TB skin test is not mandatry"
So that implies it is not required. also the correct spelling is mandatory.
The solid evidence is the number of RFEs that have been issued by USCIS if you do not have a skin test.
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_tbtest.html
Don't come around here with your 27 posts with absolutely no basis telling people this or that is not mandatory. If you have an ulterior motive in people getting RFEs, then shame on you.
No- You better get you act straight.
Your post heading said "TB skin test is not mandatry"
So that implies it is not required. also the correct spelling is mandatory.
The solid evidence is the number of RFEs that have been issued by USCIS if you do not have a skin test.
http://www.murthy.com/news/n_tbtest.html
Don't come around here with your 27 posts with absolutely no basis telling people this or that is not mandatory. If you have an ulterior motive in people getting RFEs, then shame on you.
more...
santb1975
02-14 03:37 PM
Thanks for sending the letters out. We hope to see you at our next event
I would have loved to attend, but since this a long weekend I am going out on Friday and will not be back until Monday.
Just FYI.. I did send the letters last week.
Thanks,
Abhay
I would have loved to attend, but since this a long weekend I am going out on Friday and will not be back until Monday.
Just FYI.. I did send the letters last week.
Thanks,
Abhay
burnt
12-12 01:53 PM
Friends - Do they ask for I-485 receipts at the port of entry while returning on AP?
more...
qwert_47
09-27 12:41 PM
^^^^^^^ bump
Appreciate any advice...thanks
Appreciate any advice...thanks
2010 on the red carpet at the
JazzByTheBay
07-11 10:03 PM
Thanks to the person who posted the link to the Ombundsman report earlier - this is beginning to make sense now.
USCIS Ombundsman report from JUNE 2007 says:
"For example, when employment-based visas are not used during the year they are authorized, they are lost and are not available for future use without special legislation. In FY 06, over 10,000 employment-based visas were lost, even though USCIS had an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 pending applications for employment-based green cards.36 - Based on USCIS use of visa numbers as of May 2007, at present consumption rates approximately 40,000 visas will be lost in FY 07 without a dramatic increase in USCIS requests of visa numbers.37
- As illustrated below, since 1994 there have been over 218,000 un-recaptured employment-based visas lost due to underutilization of the employment-based visas."
Dept of State: Sees visa numbers not being used, chances of visas going unutilized/unused/wasted/lost again this year. Makes July visa bulletin CURRENT for all countries & categories.
USCIS: Scrambles to approve as many visas as possible to 1) Prove they're working hard, in light of the Ombundsman Report from June 2) Save themselves from the avalanche of I-485s, EADs and AP filings in June, knowing 3) Filing fees go up like crazy on 30th July.
End Result: More visa numbers requested (but they didn't complete issuing all of them, even over the weekend).
As things stand, if they approved stuff on 1st July, it means visa numbers were in fact available on 1st July.
If they approved without completing FBI check - that's going to raise a stink and isn't entirely legal anyways.
If they *still had visa numbers available on July 2* - request from DoS but not approved, they're in bigger trouble, imho.
Anybody thinks the above makes sense?
jazz
USCIS Ombundsman report from JUNE 2007 says:
"For example, when employment-based visas are not used during the year they are authorized, they are lost and are not available for future use without special legislation. In FY 06, over 10,000 employment-based visas were lost, even though USCIS had an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 pending applications for employment-based green cards.36 - Based on USCIS use of visa numbers as of May 2007, at present consumption rates approximately 40,000 visas will be lost in FY 07 without a dramatic increase in USCIS requests of visa numbers.37
- As illustrated below, since 1994 there have been over 218,000 un-recaptured employment-based visas lost due to underutilization of the employment-based visas."
Dept of State: Sees visa numbers not being used, chances of visas going unutilized/unused/wasted/lost again this year. Makes July visa bulletin CURRENT for all countries & categories.
USCIS: Scrambles to approve as many visas as possible to 1) Prove they're working hard, in light of the Ombundsman Report from June 2) Save themselves from the avalanche of I-485s, EADs and AP filings in June, knowing 3) Filing fees go up like crazy on 30th July.
End Result: More visa numbers requested (but they didn't complete issuing all of them, even over the weekend).
As things stand, if they approved stuff on 1st July, it means visa numbers were in fact available on 1st July.
If they approved without completing FBI check - that's going to raise a stink and isn't entirely legal anyways.
If they *still had visa numbers available on July 2* - request from DoS but not approved, they're in bigger trouble, imho.
Anybody thinks the above makes sense?
jazz
more...
trramesh
11-11 09:51 PM
/\/\
hair Nicole Richie in Reem Acra
fran5477
02-19 11:24 AM
I am curious to know on what basis was your case approved? maybe it was USCIS mistake? Like I wrote before we sent my case twice with the bright colored paper and to a supervisor and twice they said it had the incorrect fees (originally) and then that there where no numbers available and to wait to PD to be current.
What I heard is that only if THEY make a mistake the 485 gets approved. Also if the check bounces, other than that I have been there and done that and nothing.
What I heard is that only if THEY make a mistake the 485 gets approved. Also if the check bounces, other than that I have been there and done that and nothing.
more...
mach1343
10-13 03:01 PM
Doesn't matter casuals or formals.
hot Chich Crush: Nicole Richie
americandesi
10-29 06:25 PM
and you are scared to death even after getting GC. Let me ask you this...are you a man or chicken?
LOL You made my day with that comment :D
LOL You made my day with that comment :D
more...
house I must admit I love the dress.
gc_buddy
01-08 08:08 PM
Ok, Noted. That's what my company few years back advised few of our assoicates to do when they did not surrender I -94
Embassies do not handle these matters. Departure and arrival records are maintained by Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). Here is the link for instructions on what to do if you did not surrender the I-94:
http://help.cbp.gov/cgi-bin/customs.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=752&p_created=1077641280&p_sid=RGQ8g3Hh&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX 3Jvd19jbnQ9OCZwX3Byb2RzPTAmcF9jYXRzPTAmcF9wdj0mcF9 jdj0mcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9ubCZwX 3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PUktOTQ*&p_li=&p_topview=1
Embassies do not handle these matters. Departure and arrival records are maintained by Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). Here is the link for instructions on what to do if you did not surrender the I-94:
http://help.cbp.gov/cgi-bin/customs.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=752&p_created=1077641280&p_sid=RGQ8g3Hh&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX 3Jvd19jbnQ9OCZwX3Byb2RzPTAmcF9jYXRzPTAmcF9wdj0mcF9 jdj0mcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9ubCZwX 3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PUktOTQ*&p_li=&p_topview=1
tattoo Nicole Richie Wears Cachet
voldemar
06-25 09:26 AM
If I were you, I would wait till it is 1st of July. What if they reject it,,u loose more time than saving!
Agree. Ask lawyer to file on Saturday June 30 with overnight delivery.
Agree. Ask lawyer to file on Saturday June 30 with overnight delivery.
more...
pictures Nicole Richie and Joel Madden
Slowhand
05-08 05:05 PM
What if your old employer cancels your I-140? In that case wouldn't it be better to have informed USCIS that you changed jobs?
dresses Nicolekidman-1. Nicole Kidman
Sai_07
06-27 10:31 PM
My I-140 was approved in Dec 2006 and still working with sponsoring company.
Now my attorney got withdrawal decision on my I-140.My company or my attorney never send withdrawal letter for my I-140. However, my company sent withdrawal letters for some 12 other cases.
Here are the exact words from letter:
In accordance with the authority contained in Titl18,Code of federal Regulations, Section 205.1(a)(3)(iii)(C),the approval of the petition is automatically revoked as of the date of approval because of your written request of revocation(termination) field on XX/XX/XXXX,in this employment-based preference petition.
Could you please suggest how to correct USCIS mistake? Do we have to file Motion to Re-Open on my I-140?
Appreciate your help.
Now my attorney got withdrawal decision on my I-140.My company or my attorney never send withdrawal letter for my I-140. However, my company sent withdrawal letters for some 12 other cases.
Here are the exact words from letter:
In accordance with the authority contained in Titl18,Code of federal Regulations, Section 205.1(a)(3)(iii)(C),the approval of the petition is automatically revoked as of the date of approval because of your written request of revocation(termination) field on XX/XX/XXXX,in this employment-based preference petition.
Could you please suggest how to correct USCIS mistake? Do we have to file Motion to Re-Open on my I-140?
Appreciate your help.
more...
makeup nicole richie red carpet
yabadaba
07-13 02:23 PM
chandu check ur pm
girlfriend Nicole Richie attended the QVC
rc0878
09-23 10:35 AM
I think as far it does not say unknown, we should be good....but still we should atleast discuss this wit our respective attorneys and post our findings in here.
BTW, mine is blank also.
To answer your question the Priority date column is NULL ( i mean blank) for most of us in 485 Receipt Notice.
But the "Section : " is showing UNKNOWN for some of us and showing something else for others...
I'm wondering if that could be an issue - shall we call USCIS to fix this ?
BTW, mine is blank also.
To answer your question the Priority date column is NULL ( i mean blank) for most of us in 485 Receipt Notice.
But the "Section : " is showing UNKNOWN for some of us and showing something else for others...
I'm wondering if that could be an issue - shall we call USCIS to fix this ?
hairstyles Cheryl Cole nude gown with a
guyfromsg
07-17 11:09 PM
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/UpdateDirectFiling062107.pdf
Thanks for the link. My lawyer didn't explain clearly why he filed in Texas. This document says even though direct filing is effective July 30th you can still file to the appropriate service center. I reside in GA and so TSC is the right one. Thanks again.
Thanks for the link. My lawyer didn't explain clearly why he filed in Texas. This document says even though direct filing is effective July 30th you can still file to the appropriate service center. I reside in GA and so TSC is the right one. Thanks again.
gcadream
02-24 02:17 PM
But is there a risk that if you work at client site and doesn't have a PO for at least 6 months then in that case the H1 extension may get denied ?
m.e.g.
04-01 01:22 PM
Ok, sadly there is no option in Illustrator 9. At least nothing convenient like when you go to save. I've tried searching in the preferences for anything that would let me save it as a PDF compatible, but no luck. Guess it finally time to upgrade. :emb:
On the bright side there is a lot of good info on sunnypixels about what happens with gradients, strokes, etc. when you import them into Blend.
Thank you!
Meg
On the bright side there is a lot of good info on sunnypixels about what happens with gradients, strokes, etc. when you import them into Blend.
Thank you!
Meg
No comments:
Post a Comment